Ex Parte ZHANG et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 16, 2016

13284573 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 16, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/284,573 10/28/2011
65913 7590 09/20/2016
Intellectual Property and Licensing
NXPB.V.
411 East Plumeria Drive, MS41
SAN JOSE, CA 95134
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Cheng ZHANG
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
81407196US03 7081
EXAMINER
TORRES-RIVERA, ALEX
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2838
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/20/2016 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
ip.department.us@nxp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte CHENG ZHANG, FRANS PANSIER, and
PETER THEODORUS JOHANNES DEGEN
Appeal2015-002720
Application 13/284,573
Technology Center 2800
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
Per Curiam.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants are appealing the rejection of claims 1--4, 12, 13, and
15-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). 1 Claims 5-11, 14, and 20 are indicated as
allowable if rewritten in independent form. Non-Final Rejection 1, 9;
Appeal Brief 15-19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Figures 1, 3, and 4 of the drawings stand objected to as not including a
designation such as "Prior Art." Non-Final Rejection 3. Additionally,
Claims 14 and 15 stand objected to for informalities. Id. These matters are
not before us because we lack jurisdiction over petitionable matters. See,
e.g., MPEP §§ 706.01 and 1201.
Appeal2015-002720
Application 13/284,573
Introduction
Appellants' invention relates to a "power factor controller" in which
"error feedback is provided [b ]y means of a parallel combination of at least
two error feedback channels." Abstract.
Representative Claim (Disputed limitations emphasized)
13. A method of providing an error feedback signal in a power
factor controller operating in voltage control mode, the method
compnsmg:
providing, in a first channel, a first channel error feedback
signal by continuously integrating a difference between a signal
indicative of an output of the power factor control and a reference
signal;
providing, in a second channel, a second channel error
feedback signal, wherein the first and second channels use
separate integrators; and
determining an error feedback signal from the first channel
error feedback signal and the second channel error feedback
signal.
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 16-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite. Non-Final Rejection 4.
Claims 13 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Mitamura (US 6,621,357 B2; September 16, 2003).
Non-Final Rejection 4.
Claims 1--4 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Mitamura, in view of Melanson (US 7,719,246 B2; May
18, 2010). Non-Final Rejection 6.
2
Appeal2015-002720
Application 13/284,573
Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Mitamura, in view of Melanson, and further in view of
Lee (US 2010/0308889 Al; December 9, 2010). Non-Final Rejection 9.
ANALYSIS
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
we refer to the Non-Final Rejection (mailed July 7, 2014), the Appeal Brief
(filed August 25, 2014), the Answer (mailed November 19, 2014), and the
Reply Brief (filed December 15, 2014) for the respective details. We have
considered in this decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised
in the Briefs.
Indefiniteness Rejection
Appellants argue Examiner error because "claims 16-18 all depend
from claim 5 which recites, in part, 'periodic integration of each integrator.'
Accordingly, 'each' integrator is the proper antecedent." Appeal Brief 4.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument. The Examiner finds
that "[t]he term 'the integrator,' in claims 16-18, is indefinite since it is not
clear if the Appellant is referring to 'each integrator' (plural integrators), or a
singular integrator located in any one of the first error feedback channel and
the second error feedback channel." Answer 3. We agree with the
Examiner. Independent claim 1 recites two error feedback channels in
which "each error feedback channel comprises a separate integrator." One
ordinarily skilled in the art would thus consider a reference to "each
integrator" to apply to both integrators, and consider a reference to "the
integrator" (as appears in claims 16-18) as unclear, absent additional claim
3
Appeal2015-002720
Application 13/284,573
language identifying the particular integrator (which does not appear in
claims 16-18). Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's infiniteness rejection
of claims 16-18.
Anticipation and Obviousness Rejections
Regarding the anticipation rejection of claim 13, Appellants argue
Examiner error because in Mitamura, "adder 10 receives modulator input
signal 1 and feedback 10 as inputs" and "Mitamura only discloses a single
feedback path." Appeal Brief 6. Particularly, Appellants contend the
Examiner's reliance on a section of Mitamura "that discloses integrators
connected at the output of adder 2," these integrators cannot reasonably be
regarded to function as feedback channels because they "are connected to
the output rather than the input." Appeal Brief 6, emphasis in original.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. The Examiner
finds:
~,.1itamura discloses a first error feedback channels comprising
error amplification circuit (13), adder (2) and integrator (3); a
second error feedback channel comprising error amplification
circuit (13), adder (2) and at least one integrator connected in
parallel to integrator (3).
Answer 4 (citing Mitamura 5:37--40). The Examiner additionally finds that
"[b ]oth error feedback channels comprise different integrators as claimed but
sharing same error amplification circuit (13) and adder (2)." Answer 5.
Appellants' arguments are unpersuasive of error because they fail to address
the Examiner's findings. The Examiner identifies feedback beginning with
the voltage input to error amplification circuit 13, in which "output voltage
measured at terminal 9 [is] inputted to 13." Non-Final Rejection 5.
4
Appeal2015-002720
Application 13/284,573
Appellants fail to challenge this finding and instead consider all feedback
with respect to feedback pathway 10, adder 2, and integrator 3. See
Mitanmra Fig. 2.
Appellants additionally argue "the Examiner relies upon an
unreasonably broad reading of the claim language" (Reply Brief 4) because
the Examiner finds "Mitamura discloses at least two different routes."
Reply Brief 4, quoting Answer 4. We are not persuaded by Appellants'
argument. The Examiner broadly and reasonably finds that, in the context of
a circuit containing feedback elements, "[a] channel could be interpreted as
--a route or path through which anything passes or progresses--." Answer 4.
Appellants fail to show that the Examiner's interpretation is contradicted by
Appellants' Specification. Appellants' arguments also fail to include
technical evidence to persuasively challenge the Examiner's findings
regarding Mitamura's feedback arrangement. See, e.g., In re Geisler, 116
F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (attorney arguments or conclusory
statements are insufficient to rebut a prima facie case).
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's anticipation rejection of
independent claim 13 and dependent claim 15. Appellants argue the
patentability of the remaining claims for the same reasons provided for
independent claim 1. See Appeal Brief 10-13, Reply Brief 3--4.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejections of these claims for the
same reasons discussed above. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv); see also In
re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's indefiniteness rejection of claims 16-18.
5
Appeal2015-002720
Application 13/284,573
We atlirm the Examiner's anticipation rejection of claims 13 and 15.
We affirm the Examiner's obviousness rejections of claims 1--4, 12,
and 19.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection
with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
6